Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the applicant and standing counsel.
(2.) NON-compliance of order dated 6.3.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2003 is alleged in this contempt application. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2003, following ad-interim order dated 6.3.2003 was passed : "Connect with Writ Petition Nos. 3684 of 2002, 4231 of 2002 and 42149 of 2002. All the respondents are represented through learned counsel and are granted a months time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List immediately thereafter alongwith the connected writ petitions. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to the one in the aforesaid writ petitions, in which interim orders have been passed. In such view of the matter, it is directed that in case sufficient number of B.T.C. trained candidates are not available for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools for which advertisements have been issued, the petitioners, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement and possess B.Ed., B.P. Ed. and L.T. certificate shall be considered for appointment against such vacancies, if otherwise found suitable and eligible. The appointment if any made shall be subject to further orders of the Court in this writ petition. Sd/- Vineet Saran, J. 6.3.2003" It is alleged by the applicant that the aforesaid interim order dated 6.3.2003, was served on the respondent, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, district Basti. It is further alleged that when the applicant along with original papers appeared before the Selection Committee at Basti, his candidature was not considered and he was told that since he does not hold Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) qualification as per advertisement, he is not eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. According to the applicant this amounts to non-consideration and cancellation of his candidature by the respondents, illegally, arbitrarily and on wholly non-existent grounds. It is also submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid order of the Court dated 6.3.2003. An advertisement was issued by the respondent inviting applications for appointment of the Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicant having B.A. B.Ed. qualification applied for the post.
(3.) THE applicant had qualification other than Basic Teachers Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the B.T.C.) required for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in rural areas. The State Government has framed "The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981, in exercise of power under Section 19 (1) of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1972). These rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Junior Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Part III and IV of the rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of teachers in Basic Schools. Rule 8 laying down essential qualification is as under : "Rule 8 (2).-The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (h) of Rule 5 for teaching Science, Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows : (i) A bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language as the case may be, as one of the subject, and (ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, certificate of teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto." ;